When we look at the very
foundations of reality, the involvement of the observer's mind becomes inescapably
obvious. The act of observation turns potentiality into actuality, resolving
the question of what a particle actually "is" through a combination of the
particle's relational potentials and the manner in which it is observed.

The strange interactions of fundamental
particles with the mind of the observer ('quantum weirdness')
have long been of interest to philosophers. There are two opposing views: (i)
Quantum weirdness produces the mind, versus(ii) The mind produces quantum
weirdness.

(i) Quantum weirdness produces the mind
Materialist philosophers have suggested that quantum weirdness offers a means of
filling the explanatory gap between the neurological functions of the brain and the
subjective sensations of the mind (known as 'The Hard Problem').

Quantum effects are claimed to offers a way
of generating non-algorithmic
mental activity from a purely physical basis. These suggestions have met with a
number of objections, and do not seem to have the necessary explanatory power to fill the
gap. (see The Penrose-Hameroff Conjecture later in this article).

(ii) The Mind produces quantum weirdnessBuddhist philosophers claim the mind is a
fundamental aspect of reality, which is 'axiomatic', in the sense of not being reducible to a physical basis, such as
to the physico-chemical activities in the brain.

This axiomatic view is the identification of 'mind' as a primary fact of reality, like
space-time, in which we live, and move, and have our being. This axiom cannot
be reduced to other facts. It is implicit in all facts and in all knowledge.

Where does the weirdness come from?
The apparent weirdness at the smallest scale of physics is the result of our realisation
of the mind's involvement in producing reality - that 'the observer is part of the
system'.

This mental involvement is actually also apparent on careful examination at our everyday
scale of reality, but we don't think about it unless it is painstakingly pointed
out, as
with King Milinda's chariot.

However, when we look at the very foundations of reality, the involvement of the
observer's mind becomes inescapably obvious. The act of observation turns
potentiality into actuality, resolving the question of what the particle actually
"is" through a combination of the particle's relational potentials and the
manner in which it is observed. For a discussion of the experimental details of
mind/matter interactions see Quantum Buddhism.

(1) Particles are not inherently existent. No particle is 'a thing in itself' with a
self-contained identity. An inherently existent particle would be
indestructible, unitary and indivisible.

(2) Particles are not causeless.

(3) Particles are not partless,
they do not exist as indivisible points.

(4) Particles are not 'permanent' in the sense of having a unchanging, static
identity.

(5) Particles exist by interaction with the mind of an observer.

What we actually see...

(1) Particles cannot function as stand-alone entities. They can only
interact with the rest of the universe by exchanging something of themselves - for example
gluons or photons. Their properties can only be known by their interactions with other
particles, and thus cannot be
completely accurately established.

(2) Particles are brought into existence by energetic events. The
mother of all energetic events was the Big Bang, which brought most of the existing
particles into existence. But natural energetic events such as cosmic
rays and beta decay continue to produce particles, and energetic man-made events in
particle accelerators produce secondary particles by hadronization and
creation of particle-antiparticle
pairs.

But if, according to Buddhist philosophy, partless particles cannot exist, how can we
avoid the infinite regress of small building-blocks being composed of even smaller
building-blocks, all the way down for ever?

This infinite regress...

...
doesn't happen with the building blocks of matter

The resolution of this apparent contradiction came with discoveries in quantum physics in
the early twentieth century. When physicists arrived at the stage where further
subdivision was no longer possible, they did indeed find numerically irreducible
particles. However these particles are no longer discrete 'things', but are smeared out
into a myriad of fuzzy probabilistic 'parts' - a continuum of probabilities distributed in
a wave function with spatial 'directional
parts'.

(5) The act of observation turns potentiality into actuality, resolving the
question of what the particle actually "is" through a combination of the
particle's inherent potentials and the manner in which it is observed.

The mathematical equations of quantum
physics do not describe actual existence - they predict the potential for existence.
Working out the equations of quantum mechanics for a system composed of fundamental
particles produces a range of potential locations, values and attributes of the particles
which evolve and change with time. But for any system only one of these potential states
can become real, and - this is the revolutionary finding of quantum physics - what forces
the range of the potentials to assume one value is the act of observation.

Matter and energy are not in themselves
phenomena, and do not become phenomena until they are observed. For a discussion of
the experimental details see Quantum Buddhism.

'If you ever want to get your head around the riddle that is quantum mechanics, look no
further than the double-slit experiment. This shows, with perfect simplicity, how just
watching a wave or a particle can change its behaviour. The idea is so unpalatable to
physicists that they have spent decades trying to find new ways to test it. The latest
such attempt, by physicists in Europe and Canada, used a three-slit version  but
quantum mechanics won out again... Full article

A1) Human thought, at least in some
instances, is sound , yet nonalgorithmic
(i.e. noncomputational). (Hypothesis based on the Gödel result.)

A2) In these instances, the human thinker
is aware of or conscious of the contents of these thoughts.

A3) The only recognized instances of
nonalgorithmic processes in the universe are perhaps certain kinds of randomness; e.g. the
reduction of the quantum mechanical state vector. (Based on accepted physical theories.)

A4) Randomness is not promising as the
source of the nonalgorithmicity needed to account for (1). (Otherwise mathematical
understanding would be magical.)

Therefore:A5) Conscious human thought, at least in
some cases, perhaps in all cases, relies on principles which are beyond current physical
understanding, though not in principle beyond any (e.g. some future) scientific physical
understanding. (Via A1 - A4)

Part B: Inadequacy of Current Physical
Theory, and How to Fix It.

B1) There is no current adequate theory
concerning the 'collapse' of the quantum mechanical wave function, but an additional
theory of quantum gravity might be useful to this end.